Distributed radiomics as a signature validation study using the Personal Health Train infrastructure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prediction modelling with radiomics is a rapidly developing research topic that requires access to vast amounts of imaging data. Methods that work on decentralized data are urgently needed, because of concerns about patient privacy. Previously published computed tomography medical image sets with gross tumour volume (GTV) outlines for non-small cell lung cancer have been updated with extended follow-up. In a previous study, these were referred to as Lung1 (n = 421) and Lung2 (n = 221). The Lung1 dataset is made publicly accessible via The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA; https://www.cancerimagingarchive.net ). We performed a decentralized multi-centre study to develop a radiomic signature (hereafter "ZS2019") in one institution and validated the performance in an independent institution, without the need for data exchange and compared this to an analysis where all data was centralized. The performance of ZS2019 for 2-year overall survival validated in distributed radiomics was not statistically different from the centralized validation (AUC 0.61 vs 0.61; p = 0.52). Although slightly different in terms of data and methods, no statistically significant difference in performance was observed between the new signature and previous work (c-index 0.58 vs 0.65; p = 0.37). Our objective was not the development of a new signature with the best performance, but to suggest an approach for distributed radiomics. Therefore, we used a similar method as an earlier study. We foresee that the Lung1 dataset can be further re-used for testing radiomic models and investigating feature reproducibility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".